†. Gen 47:27-28 . . Now the Israelites settled in Egypt in the region
of Goshen. They acquired property there and were fruitful and
increased greatly in number. Jacob lived in Egypt seventeen years,
and the years of his life were a hundred and forty-seven.
Jacob immigrated to Egypt when he was 130 (Gen 47:9) so he spent as
many years with Joseph at the last as he had at the first-- seventeen (cf.
Gen 37:2). At this point, the famine had been done and over for 12 years,
since it was during the second year of the seven-year famine that the people
of Israel arrived (Gen 45:11). During those 12 years, and no doubt the other
five too, Jacob's clan did very well for themselves; so that they eventually
became a political element to be reckoned with (Ex 1:6-10). By the time of
the Exodus, the Israelites numbered over 600,000 adults, not counting
children. Israelites were accounted "children" until the age of 20 (Num
26:2). Here in America, we let children of 18 vote for Presidents. Now that's
scary.
It's interesting that another Pharaoh, in the future-- who would enslave
them in the book of Exodus --wasn't worried about the Israelites increasing
to the point of taking over his country, no, he was concerned they might up
and leave it. What's that saying? It's saying, that as a people, Jacob's clan
were excellent, productive citizens who accounted for a significant portion of
Egypt's gross national product.
The palace itself benefited from their ranching skills (Gen 47:5). No doubt
Hebrew beef from the Nile delta became a highly sought commodity
everywhere in Egypt. Jacob's people not only maintained a fishing industry,
but they farmed too (Num 11:5). And among them were experts in the
construction trades (Ex 1:11) and in every manner of skill and artifice (Ex
31:1-6, Ex 35:20-36:7). That all tells me that the Israelites weren't
freeloaders by any means. They were hard workers who put their noses to
the grindstone and contributed their fair share to Egypt's prosperity just like
today's Hispanic immigrants contribute their own fair share to America's
prosperity. In point of fact, if today's Hispanic work force should all up and
return to their native lands, America's economy would really feel it. So is it
really any wonder then why the US Government does all it can to
accommodate Hispanic immigrants; even the illegal ones?
†. Gen 47:29a . . And when the time approached for Israel to die, he
summoned his son Joseph
Normally, the patriarchs would convene with a natural firstborn son for
serious family business, but that position was transferred to Joseph because
of Reuben's tryst with his father's concubine.
†. 1Chrn 5:1 . . Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was
the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright
was given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel: and the genealogy is
not to be reckoned after the birthright.)
Note : the reason genealogies aren't reckoned by birthright is because the
status is conferrable upon a younger sibling; which of course would produce
an inaccurate family chronology.
†. Gen 47:29b . . and said unto him: If now I have found grace in thy
sight,
The phrase "found grace in they sight" seems to be a Genesis colloquialism
for someone disposed to do you a favor; e.g. Gen 6:8 where God singled out
Noah to survive the Flood.
†. Gen 47:29c . . put your hand under my thigh, and deal kindly and
truly with me.
This is the second, and last, place in Genesis where a hand was placed under
a patriarch's thigh during the making of a promise. The first was Gen 24:2
3, with Abraham.
†. Gen 47:29d-30a . . Do not bury me in Egypt, but when I rest with
my fathers, carry me out of Egypt and bury me where they are
buried.
Jacob's statement underscores the fact that when people are gathered to
their ancestors, it doesn't necessarily indicate burial because Jacob's
remains would be stored in Egypt until such a time as he could be
transported back to Canaan. So he would already be at rest with his
ancestors prior to actually being buried with them later. (cf. Gen 49:33, Gen
50:3, and Gen 50:12-13)
When you think about it, choosing the location of one's burial site is a non
sequitur. Some people want to buried overlooking the sea or an orchard. But
do they themselves really get much of a view? No, they're gone on to the
netherworld; and their remains, being underground and quite without life or
eyesight, have only the inky blackness of a subterranean pit to view, if that.
So then, is there really any significance to Jacob's request? Yes, it means
that Jacob believed the land of Canaan was on his own property; rather than
just the land of his nativity. He wanted to be buried at home, rather than on
foreign soil. God had promised Jacob deed and title to that land back in
chapter 35; and although it never became a reality in his own days, Jacob
was confident that God was a man of integrity who would eventually make
good on His promises. The patriarchs were amazingly patient. (cf. Heb
11:13-16)
†. Gen 47: 30b-31a . . He replied: I will do as you have spoken. And
he said: Swear to me. And he swore to him.
Some Bible students construe Jesus' words at Mtt 5:33-37 to mean that
taking an oath is a sin. But that's not what he said at all. What he really said
in that passage is that taking an oath sets you up for a fall because human
beings cannot guarantee that unforeseen circumstances won't prevent them
from making good on their promises.
If taking an oath were intrinsically a sin, then God himself would be a sinner
(e.g. Gen 22:15-18, Ps 89:3-4, Ps 89:35-37, Ps 110:4, Isa 14:24, Isa 45:23,
Isa 54:9, Heb 4:3, et al). Jesus too would be in contradiction of his own
teachings because he testified under oath that he was the Messiah; God's
son (Mtt 23:63-65). The holy angels would be sinners too. (Rev 10:5-6)
I think most people would have been satisfied to just take Joseph's word for
it; had they been fully aware of his reputation; but Jacob was old school. In
his experience, to trust a man's word-- especially his own (cf. Gen 27:1-40)
--even the word of the one son whom he loved and trusted above all the
others, was foolhardy.
Well . . Jacob isn't taking any chances that his number-one son might get so
caught up in State business that he lets an idle promise to his dad slip
through a crack. The patriarchs regarded oaths very seriously because they
all believed in a God who held men accountable.
†. Gen 47:31b . .Then Israel bowed at the head of the bed.
There's differences of opinion among the experts how best to interpret that
verse; but in context, it appears to me that Jacob has become bedridden,
and is-- as best he can for a man of his age and health --doing obeisance to
Joseph as a courtesy in the manner that Abraham did with the Hittites back
in chapter 23. In other words; Jacob lowered his eyes and nodded his head
in a sort of salute; which, courtesy aside, was somewhat equal to saying:
Okay then; we're good.
Cont.
/
of Goshen. They acquired property there and were fruitful and
increased greatly in number. Jacob lived in Egypt seventeen years,
and the years of his life were a hundred and forty-seven.
Jacob immigrated to Egypt when he was 130 (Gen 47:9) so he spent as
many years with Joseph at the last as he had at the first-- seventeen (cf.
Gen 37:2). At this point, the famine had been done and over for 12 years,
since it was during the second year of the seven-year famine that the people
of Israel arrived (Gen 45:11). During those 12 years, and no doubt the other
five too, Jacob's clan did very well for themselves; so that they eventually
became a political element to be reckoned with (Ex 1:6-10). By the time of
the Exodus, the Israelites numbered over 600,000 adults, not counting
children. Israelites were accounted "children" until the age of 20 (Num
26:2). Here in America, we let children of 18 vote for Presidents. Now that's
scary.
It's interesting that another Pharaoh, in the future-- who would enslave
them in the book of Exodus --wasn't worried about the Israelites increasing
to the point of taking over his country, no, he was concerned they might up
and leave it. What's that saying? It's saying, that as a people, Jacob's clan
were excellent, productive citizens who accounted for a significant portion of
Egypt's gross national product.
The palace itself benefited from their ranching skills (Gen 47:5). No doubt
Hebrew beef from the Nile delta became a highly sought commodity
everywhere in Egypt. Jacob's people not only maintained a fishing industry,
but they farmed too (Num 11:5). And among them were experts in the
construction trades (Ex 1:11) and in every manner of skill and artifice (Ex
31:1-6, Ex 35:20-36:7). That all tells me that the Israelites weren't
freeloaders by any means. They were hard workers who put their noses to
the grindstone and contributed their fair share to Egypt's prosperity just like
today's Hispanic immigrants contribute their own fair share to America's
prosperity. In point of fact, if today's Hispanic work force should all up and
return to their native lands, America's economy would really feel it. So is it
really any wonder then why the US Government does all it can to
accommodate Hispanic immigrants; even the illegal ones?
†. Gen 47:29a . . And when the time approached for Israel to die, he
summoned his son Joseph
Normally, the patriarchs would convene with a natural firstborn son for
serious family business, but that position was transferred to Joseph because
of Reuben's tryst with his father's concubine.
†. 1Chrn 5:1 . . Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was
the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright
was given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel: and the genealogy is
not to be reckoned after the birthright.)
Note : the reason genealogies aren't reckoned by birthright is because the
status is conferrable upon a younger sibling; which of course would produce
an inaccurate family chronology.
†. Gen 47:29b . . and said unto him: If now I have found grace in thy
sight,
The phrase "found grace in they sight" seems to be a Genesis colloquialism
for someone disposed to do you a favor; e.g. Gen 6:8 where God singled out
Noah to survive the Flood.
†. Gen 47:29c . . put your hand under my thigh, and deal kindly and
truly with me.
This is the second, and last, place in Genesis where a hand was placed under
a patriarch's thigh during the making of a promise. The first was Gen 24:2
3, with Abraham.
†. Gen 47:29d-30a . . Do not bury me in Egypt, but when I rest with
my fathers, carry me out of Egypt and bury me where they are
buried.
Jacob's statement underscores the fact that when people are gathered to
their ancestors, it doesn't necessarily indicate burial because Jacob's
remains would be stored in Egypt until such a time as he could be
transported back to Canaan. So he would already be at rest with his
ancestors prior to actually being buried with them later. (cf. Gen 49:33, Gen
50:3, and Gen 50:12-13)
When you think about it, choosing the location of one's burial site is a non
sequitur. Some people want to buried overlooking the sea or an orchard. But
do they themselves really get much of a view? No, they're gone on to the
netherworld; and their remains, being underground and quite without life or
eyesight, have only the inky blackness of a subterranean pit to view, if that.
So then, is there really any significance to Jacob's request? Yes, it means
that Jacob believed the land of Canaan was on his own property; rather than
just the land of his nativity. He wanted to be buried at home, rather than on
foreign soil. God had promised Jacob deed and title to that land back in
chapter 35; and although it never became a reality in his own days, Jacob
was confident that God was a man of integrity who would eventually make
good on His promises. The patriarchs were amazingly patient. (cf. Heb
11:13-16)
†. Gen 47: 30b-31a . . He replied: I will do as you have spoken. And
he said: Swear to me. And he swore to him.
Some Bible students construe Jesus' words at Mtt 5:33-37 to mean that
taking an oath is a sin. But that's not what he said at all. What he really said
in that passage is that taking an oath sets you up for a fall because human
beings cannot guarantee that unforeseen circumstances won't prevent them
from making good on their promises.
If taking an oath were intrinsically a sin, then God himself would be a sinner
(e.g. Gen 22:15-18, Ps 89:3-4, Ps 89:35-37, Ps 110:4, Isa 14:24, Isa 45:23,
Isa 54:9, Heb 4:3, et al). Jesus too would be in contradiction of his own
teachings because he testified under oath that he was the Messiah; God's
son (Mtt 23:63-65). The holy angels would be sinners too. (Rev 10:5-6)
I think most people would have been satisfied to just take Joseph's word for
it; had they been fully aware of his reputation; but Jacob was old school. In
his experience, to trust a man's word-- especially his own (cf. Gen 27:1-40)
--even the word of the one son whom he loved and trusted above all the
others, was foolhardy.
Well . . Jacob isn't taking any chances that his number-one son might get so
caught up in State business that he lets an idle promise to his dad slip
through a crack. The patriarchs regarded oaths very seriously because they
all believed in a God who held men accountable.
†. Gen 47:31b . .Then Israel bowed at the head of the bed.
There's differences of opinion among the experts how best to interpret that
verse; but in context, it appears to me that Jacob has become bedridden,
and is-- as best he can for a man of his age and health --doing obeisance to
Joseph as a courtesy in the manner that Abraham did with the Hittites back
in chapter 23. In other words; Jacob lowered his eyes and nodded his head
in a sort of salute; which, courtesy aside, was somewhat equal to saying:
Okay then; we're good.
Cont.
/
